12/02/2021 / By Ethan Huff
Some progress is being made against the Biden regime’s efforts to forcibly “vaccinate” all of America with the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19).
One of the most recent victories was a decision by U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Schelp out of Missouri who issued a preliminary injunction blocking a White House order that all workers employed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) have to be fully vaccinated by Jan. 4, 2022, in order to keep their jobs.
“The nature and breadth of the CMS mandate requires clear authorization from Congress – and Congress has provided none,” Schelp said, adding further that the mandate threatens consequences of “vast economic and political significance.”
Schelp’s ruling only applied to health care workers in 10 states: Missouri, Nebraska, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, New Hampshire, Wyoming and Alaska. However, another case that followed expanded the injunction to the entire country.
The White House still has the option to appeal Schelp’s ruling before the Eighth Circuit, reports indicate. Meanwhile, there are at least three other lawsuits working through the system that challenge the CMS mandate.
“The White House says 96% of federal employees are compliant with Biden’s vaccine mandate and there are no plans to extend the deadline to vaccinate or get fired,” reported RT.
“However, the attempt to impose a mandate on private businesses with 100 or more employees was blocked by the Fifth Circuit court earlier this month.”
Back in October, Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed an executive order contesting other Biden jab mandates.
The aforementioned victory only applies to CMS workers, however there are many other employees both in health care and other sectors who still face potential firing for refusing to get injected.
Government contractors are among them, as are all private sector employees who work for companies with more than 100 workers.
Legislators in Kansas and elsewhere are also putting up a fight by threatening to withdraw government funding if the mandates are not lifted.
Based on the contents of the Congressional Review Act, the 41 some-odd senators say they have a constitutional duty to act in this manner under such circumstances.
“I hope President [sic] Biden was listening to the people in the state of Virginia yesterday, in a state that he won [sic] by double digits, a Democrat governor lost,” announced Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), who is also a medical doctor, about the effort.
Marshall went on to compare Biden to a predator attempting to “get between a mama bear and her cubs” with his aggressive injection push.
It may be too little, too late, but at least some members of Congress are attempting to fight back against the Biden regime’s assault on medical freedom. Time will tell if anything comes of it, or if workers under pressure end up just complying.
“No president has the right to make law,” noted one commenter at RT. “That is the job of Congress.”
“The use of EOs by the president was meant to run the executive branch, not the nation as a whole. The use of EOs has been abused by most administrations because Congress is too lazy and corrupt to do their job. If you want a king or dictator then fire the 600+ drunken druggies (Congress) that are constantly lining their pockets at taxpayer expense.”
Another commenter pointed out that a sitting president still has the constitutional authority to veto laws from Congress, meaning they can still go nowhere even if done properly.
More related news about the legal challenges against the Biden regime’s jab mandates can be found at Fascism.news.
Sources for this article include:
Tagged Under: Biden, big government, civil war, COVID, health freedom, injunction, lawsuit, medical fascism, Medical Tyranny, Plandemic, Resist, revolt, uprising, vaccine mandates, vaccine wars, vaccines, victories
Vaccines.News is a fact-based public education website published by Vaccines News Features, LLC.
All content copyright © 2018 by Vaccines News Features, LLC.
All trademarks, registered trademarks and servicemarks mentioned on this site are the property of their respective owners.